Its no wonder that the majority of newspaper articles written about cyclists (or any other subject requiring a minute amount of intelligence, for that matter) are little more then loads of inflammatory crock, and/or tasteless, thoughtless garbage.

EDIT: Santeria says this is something not of his own doing, rather, it is that of the newspaper he works for. I cannot accuse his personal character for something that he is not responsible for, but I still question the language and context that is being applied to the photo.

Yes, obviously it was a tragic moment. I certainly am not trying to make light of them.

But, newspapers don't 'memorialize' photographers nor their work, sorry. So while I'd like to say that we wore black ribbons over our arms, et al...the photo was part of a year in review, an anniversary of accidents if you will.

And part two to that equation is that this was the best shot of the year. Spot news, and other things come into play with this. I truly am sorry if you view this as sick, or 'deranged' that photography is viewed in a 'best of' context based on the image.

After years of coming here, I think I'm finally insulted enough to leave permanently. I commute daily to work via bike, and have since 2005. To be ridiculed because I shared something bike related in this community like this is insulting.

Trust me, I can find insensitivity in your jobs too, every single one of you.

To be ridiculed because I shared something bike related in this community like this is insulting.

Ridiculed? Insulting?

Sharing a picture of injury and a death coming under a "best shot of the year" heading is ridicule and insult.

To even think of people gawking at this photograph is sick - everyone knows darn well that the only thing that has kept this photo "alive" this long is the warped astonishment/sensationalism of the actions happening. There is no redeeming quality to it.

The latter photo symbolizes the unfortunate and poignant truth about world poverty - a grave and serious problem that the world must face and do its best to rectify for the benefit of humanity. In that context, it has merit.

I don't disagree with your dire analysis about poverty, but one might argue that poverty is also a "needless cause of human stupidity and error." It's caused by humans and nearly nobody disagrees that there is no need for poverty. We have enough food for everyone.

I don't disagree with your dire analysis about poverty, but one might argue that poverty is also a "needless cause of human stupidity and error." It's caused by humans and nearly nobody disagrees that there is no need for poverty. We have enough food for everyone.

That is true, but such problems extend past that of a single individual's stupidity, and enters the realm of politics and/or greed.

7-10 split?? Is that your attempt at humor? WTF? It isn't the photo per se, it's the way in which you presented it. While I applaud any attempt to bring senseless road tragedies to the general publics attention; I'm shocked by the tone of your post, especially the title. Perhaps you should leave. Instead of apologizing for your original post, you have the nerve to become incensed over our reaction to it.

7-10 split?? Is that your attempt at humor? WTF? It isn't the photo per se, it's the way in which you presented it. While I applaud any attempt to bring senseless road tragedies to the general publics attention; I'm shocked by the tone of your post, especially the title. Perhaps you should leave. Instead of apologizing for your original post, you have the nerve to become incensed over our reaction to it.

I kept the original title that the series of photos was found under here.

I seriously have to explain this apparently MUCH further than I did originally.

The anniversary of this accident coincides with the end of the year issue of the paper. The editorial staff (i.e. 10+ people) were looking for this photo. I found it, and was sorta shocked at the fact that someone caught the moment of this accident.

Newspaper offices tend to be a little more 'mean' than others simply because the people that work here (and I've been in newspapers for more than 13 years) have seen a lot. You can't excuse the behavior, but you also have to think about the fact that we have also seen some pretty morbid ****. So they (and I on other occasions) inject humor into things to keep from living in a Valium-induced coma.

This photograph probably would (and I'd wager was) submitted for SEVERAL national/international awards for spot news photography. I know this is hard to comprehend, coming from a society that will gawk at me and others pulling a dead body from an accident without blinking a ****ing eye, but will kick me in the virtual face for presenting the facts unedited about this photograph.

I'm a veteran of the first Gulf War (incident).
I'm a veteran firefighter and EMT.
I'm a veteran newspaper designer.

I've seen a few things in my time, and while I always have empathy, I also try to present the facts as they were presented to me, unedited.

Many in the image were injured, if I understand correctly, only one was killed. That is definitely a tragedy. Perhaps you should thank your god you weren't there? But while your at it, thank him for giving you the power to be so abject and judgmental to assume instantly that I MUST get some perverse joy out of the incident (which I wasn't even AT, or part of this community DURING the incident).

I'm also SHOCKED by the tone of most of your posts, frankly. But I'm not going to go around assuming I know what context you meant based on it, odds are you're probably a decent guy - don't assume you know **** about me other than I got pissed when I got stomped for posting it last night. For that much, I've already apologized.

In conclusion, Six, I'll avoid posting anything here, because you good Christians already have you're gasoline and matches ready to do service to your religion (and politics, beliefs and concepts of what is acceptable). I'll merely continue to be an observer as you crucify everybody and everything you don't see through you're rose-colored glasses.

I guess this is the state of our media today and what it does to people. You can see someone getting shot or head blown off, BUT you can't see a woman's breast.... Why is this??? Do they want us to live in a backwards society??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tifmqKz34V4

No offense, but I'm a little shocked that you're shocked. It's amazing that you can be so naive and, seemingly, so jaded at the same time. What kind of response did you expect? If anything, the response has been more restrained than you had any reason to expect. It's not so much the picture; it's the context: 7-10 split? best accident? Get real! How is that not insensitive?

Shock is sometimes a valid, effective and even essential part of journalism, as evidenced by the prize-winning photo posted by kuan-- in my opinion, well deserving of a Pulitzer. But it can be very tricky. Anybody who thinks the two photos are comparable needs to lay off the crack pipe. The prize-winning photo is horrific and compelling. The other is, if anything, not horrific enough. It's too sanitized. It's death without blood and gore, sensationalism without a point. As much as anything else, it glorifies carnage on the highways. Combined with '7-10 split' and 'best accident,' it is the worst that "journalism" can be. I can find more responsible journalism on youtube.

I know that newspapers have fallen on bad times. I can remember a time when most big cities had more than one, had actual reporters, had journalistic standards and weren't all owned by the same few media companies only interested in the bottom line. Perhaps, under the circumstances, a 'best accidents' issue is just a sign of the times. I have to admit that my favorite local TV station for news can, at times, be the worst ambulance-casers in town. It always amuses me when they become indignant about the much-deserved criticism they get. Hey, if you wallow in poop, don't be surprised if come out with a little stink.

I personally mourn for the truth. It's very easy to use the anonymity of the web to create a person that is rich in understanding, political correct overtones and high brow standards.

You are part of the same society that has more than 20 channels available on cable that shows court room drama, stupid criminals, destroyed in seconds and a plethora of 'faces of death' grade fare for your visual consumption.

You are part of a society that gawks at tragedy as you drive by with your double mocha latte (or rides by in your hipster jeans on your fixed wheel bike with matching Italian racing hat/spandex kit w/ matching Lance Armstrong action figure).

You are part of the same society I am, yet you'll try to pass off (much like others) that because nobody knows who you are in real life, or what you do for a living, you can act amazed, NAE downright OFFENDED because of something that was said that was off color and insensitive at THAT moment.

I've already apologized for the slight. I've already said beyond a shadow of a doubt that we find humor in the wrong things sometimes for the wrong reasons in journalism.

Then you quote me, out of context. Sigh, do I have to point out that the poster I was pointing out made JUST AS MANY off color jokes at other's expense on the boards themselves? Or are you going to just grab three or four random words from this response to straw man together yet another rebut?

Please, let me state again. Yes, we (and I by continuing to keep it in the same vane) were insensitive and dickish for making ANY reference to this as less than a tragedy. But honestly, if your looking to argue something out of context, 3 days too late AND misquote me - keep it to religion where that kinda offhanded sloppiness is fitting and normal?

I work in a hospital, and some (really only a few) of us also use insensitive humor as a coping mechanism. We all saw MASH and Scrubs, but, in real life you'd better be careful not to use this humor in public, on the Internet, or anywhere a patient, visitor or boss can hear you. You'll get fired if you do! And you'll also lose the respect of your colleagues if you do it too often, even in the privacy of the break room.

This has nothing to do with religion; everything to do with professionalism and compassion. I have no reason to think that journalism is any different. When you're a member of a profession, you have to meet higher standards if you want the respect of your peers and the public.

(BTW, I have no quarrel with the photo itself, or with the paper's decision to run it twice. My quarrel is with the unprofessional manner in which the photo was presented here on Bikeforums.)